1hcav, 2hcav and lancers

[Xol!]

I hole heartedly agree,  and was inclined to not even mention 2h cav here.  two things made me reconsider:

1:  being highly effective when dehorsed,

2)  that insane cataphrac/morningstar bashibazuk. kastamanulu iirc.  he seems more effective than any lancer or 1h but reyiz out there atm,  maybe due to his heavy load out,  but he shows that its a viable option.  if one can do it,  many can.

Oh, 2h cav can be very, very effective, I'm not disputing that.  Any cavalry can be, it's just the nature of the beast.  Just look at Rohypnol and his xbow cav build.  He regularly sits on the top of the scoreboard.  For cavalry play, though, someone who's running a 2h build would generally be better off running a 1h build.  Even with a morningstar, you're just as well off going with a shield, using it with 1h wpf, and taking the '2h as 1h' penalty, because at least you have a shield. 

Can't deny 2h got style though 

I think you ended your own debate.   2h cav is not inferior than 1h or lancer cav, because it can be better on the ground...when you are inevitably de-horsed.

Well, the 'best infantry class' debate can rage on, but I think whether or not a player chooses to go 2h cav has more to do with what weapons they like to use, not what's better. 

I guess the best way to put it is this:  You're never going to see a min-maxer or hard-cav player on 2h cav, unless they're horribly, horribly misinformed.

[Torben]

pole is: "well balanced with individual stregnths and weeknesses,  all of them being a valid option?"

so do the guys who dont see this balance want to contribute by saying how it could be done better?

I dont see need in it.  every class has people performing extremely well,  with similar gear.  that one class draws more players than the other because it has a flatter learning curve,  is not the question at hand.

I do understand the 2h delemma.  still dont see it underpowered,  any class is a killer in capable hands. 

[Xol!]

pole is: "well balanced with individual stregnths and weeknesses,  all of them being a valid option?"

so do the guys who dont see this balance want to contribute by saying how it could be done better?

I dont see need in it.  every class has people performing extremely well,  with similar gear.  that one class draws more players than the other because it has a flatter learning curve,  is not the question at hand.

I do understand the 2h delemma.  still dont see it underpowered,  any class is a killer in capable hands.

Definitely.  I like it the way it is.  To be honest, 2h cav shouldn't really be that viable on horseback compared to lances or 1h cav anyway.

[Torben]

Definitely.  I like it the way it is.  To be honest, 2h cav shouldn't really be that viable on horseback compared to lances or 1h cav anyway.

would be nice to give them some sort of bonus tho.  maybe a short crushthrough weapon : )

[Stabby_Dave]

pole is: "well balanced with individual stregnths and weeknesses,  all of them being a valid option?"

so do the guys who dont see this balance want to contribute by saying how it could be done better?

I dont see need in it.  every class has people performing extremely well,  with similar gear.  that one class draws more players than the other because it has a flatter learning curve,  is not the question at hand.

I do understand the 2h delemma.  still dont see it underpowered,  any class is a killer in capable hands.

I think re-adding crushthrough on one of the longer 2h weapons would be good, for instance the morning star. However, if possible make it so that the only way it would ever crush through would be if travelling at full speed on one of the faster horses. Therefore you wouldnt get str whores abusing it as infantry. This would create a nice niche sub-class.

OR remove the 2h speed/damage penalty on horseback.

I dont think either would make 2h cav better than lancers or 1h cav but it would bring it more in line.

[Vexus]

I voted no mostly for the 2h cav.

Since we are talking about mounted combat not ground combat 2h cav is the most disadvantaged here and ALL cav dismounted are viable on ground not only 2h cav.

Secondly they are not balanced because cav with lances have a bigger chance to strike because they don't need to go infront of their enemies but just thrust from far away (Not to mention the possibility of couching which by itself is a major advantage over the other 2).

2h cav are a niche class which I tried and enjoyed but expect to be targeted often by lancers.

[Xol!]

crushthrough

crushthrough or speed/damage buff

Honestly, crushthrough was OP as fuck on horseback.  I played around with it on one of my first 2h cav gens, carrying a shortened military scythe for people without shields and a regular maul (useable on horseback back then) for those with them.  There's just nothing an infantry player can do to avoid getting wrecked.  Granted, this was before the big cav nerf, but I doubt they'll bring it back, much fun as it would be.  I'd love to use my mallet on horseback, even without crushthrough.

I've mentioned tweaking the damage/speed to cmp before, but my impression was that it was impossible change it, before WSE was implemented, because it's a hardcoded feature.  Maybe it's possible now that WSE is part of cRPG.

[Stabby_Dave]

I think that if it was possible at high speeds only (ruling out heavy horse crush-throughers) then it could be pretty balanced since you will still be pretty much useless against any aware 2h/polearmers.

[Jarlek]

When I retire I am gonna make a 1h/2h/polearm cav with pretty even distribution of wpf (not decided completel yet). Obviously it wont be the same as a full single-wpf build, but it should be pretty good to judge. I'll post a recap on how the all work on horse compared to each other when I'm close to retiring that gen.

Kinda looking forward to the Morningstar&shield on horseback Although I'm still unsure about the shield :/

[Torben]

...

mate,  I know you know your self around,  just wanted to remember you to consider that every class requires completely different playstyles. 

So it wont be easy to do a fair comparison,  as your former experiences, as well as the easier accessibility of basic lancing,  will probably cloud judgement a bit . )

[Jarlek]

mate,  I know you know your self around,  just wanted to remember you to consider that every class requires completely different playstyles. 

So it wont be easy to do a fair comparison,  as your former experiences, as well as the easier accessibility of basic lancing,  will probably cloud judgement a bit . )

Yeah, I know. Although having them all at the same time ought to count for something when you compare them. As I said, I'll come back and write a wrap up of what I learned/think when I'm done with that gen, ok?

[Torben]

lookin forward to it chap

[Toffi]

Hey Torben, my main is a lancer, my alt a 1h cav.

I was enjoying the 1h cav using the morningstar before it got nerfed 1 1/2h years ago, but now, in my opinion, lancers are just much better cause of their range.

They have no problems killing other 1h or 2h horsemen, and its also easier to kill aware infantry charging head-on than with a 1h swrod, which is much shorter.

Edit: When you are dismounted, you are better of with a 1h and a shield in your hand than a lance So this is a + for the 1 h cav. But I still think it's unbalanced.

[Tzar]

This:

lancer

Vroom vroom

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

This is 1h/2h cav:

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Spawny]

Edit: When you are dismounted, you are better of with a 1h and a shield in your hand than a lance So this is a + for the 1 h cav. But I still think it's unbalanced.

If you get a chance to get up. When dehorsed by a lancer, you're now 1h/shield infantry against a lancer cav.

On a side note, it feels that it takes longer before a 1h with shield can start blocking when getting up compared with polearmers without a shield. Not sure if that's true, or if that's just my subjective observation.